DV-2014 Lottery High number or not? Please help.

[raevsky]

my calculations are very simple ,just using the official numbers without any hidden or conspiracy theories like ravesky.
based on last year (DV2013) and according to official numbers there were 16K selected from Asia (this number is quite constant and you can see it in all previous years statistics ) , so with the increasing of the 19% (16K * 1.19 = 19K) , this year there will be around 19K selected from Asia.

what we are not sure of is the holes ( this is changing every year)
you can see in the visa bulletin some years :
there were 10K-80K from Asia
and some year small like max 10K,
but all the time numbers of selected remains around 16K.

according to reports of users here and there largest number that has seen in asia is 26K.
so now i'll calculate the average space between numbers( Holes)
my prediction is to 19K selected , so ratio will be 26K/19 = 1.37 .

according to DV2013 all got current in august so if all current this means that the 16K selected will get interviewed if they submitted forms.
so
i'll take this number and ,multiply it with the holes ratio that is assumed 1.37 with the 16K of last lottery(DV2013)

1.37 * 16K = 22K , so this number should be interviewed until august.

OK, let's look at South America region.
We have 2206 winners in dv-13 and 1252 is the max number on CEAC. So, your point is that those 1252 numbers are entries, and 2206 are with family members. If there are no holes, and all 1252 numbers apply to KCC, and almost no denials are issued, that could be possible. Because for 101000 entries there are 217000 family members from SA.
However, let's look at largest country in SA - Venezuela, 924 winners. Do they all apply?
CEAC data for Venezuela (for June 1st when I ran it) shows only 156 entries and 415 including family members (well, in the consulate in Caracas, what is not exactly the same as Venezualan natives, but rather close to that). Out of 924 winners. Even if 924 include family members, only about half of them apply to KCC. It is hard to believe other countries in SA would show 100% while Venezuela would show only 50% rate. And how could those 1252 produce 2206 winners with so lo application rate?

 

[raevsky]

i don't know which statements you are referring, i only looked in official statistics information from the web site,
didn't listen to any other distractions. your hidden numbered theory seemed like a conspiracy plan to make people unhappy and miserable after they got selected.

All statements from my post 197 are official statements of DOS.

please refer to my calculations and explain to me , why do you think your calculations are better than mine ?

Just did. They contradict facts (unlike mine). That is why I disqualify them.

 

[monashed]

All statements from my post 197 are official statements of DOS.

Just did. They contradict facts (unlike mine). That is why I disqualify them.

no contradiction found yet,
did you might think that CEAC site is not updated so often , maybe not all numbers are shown there ?

 

[Britsimon]

Monashed, The thing is with your theory is an assumption that once the region is current all remaining selectees will get an interview. I have a hard time with that. Take DV2013 Asia for example. It probably has a highest number of around 21/22k. The July cutoff was 9850 and then August went current. So, it takes them 10 months to process just under 10k selectees and then we are supposed to believe they process the remaining 12000 in two months. I just have a hard time believing that. Why would they process only 1k per month and then save up their work for the last two months?

Being current does mean you can submit your aos case and it does mean that you are expecting an interview to be scheduled but I suspect for some the interview never comes (because consular offices can only accept appointments at a given rate) or it comes and then is cancelled because the 55k limit has been met (or will be with the remaining cases already interviewed).

I do believe there will be a cutoff in 2014 because of the additional 20k selectees. I would like to think (and have advised people) that the first 105k are safe(ish) and that the top 20k globally are at risk. That somewhat ties with your theory (because your calculation gets to the same answer in a different way). However, as I have said before I am reluctant to dismiss Raevsky's theory out of hand because he has more experience in this subject than you or I do, he is undoubtedly qualified/intelligent enough to be able to analyze the data and unlike you or I he isn't emotionally involved. So you may not like what he says or how he says it, but one would be a bloody fool to dismiss it as utter nonsense.

By the way - I agree 100% that NONE of us can be certain until DV2014 has played out.

 

[House409]

The thing I don't really get is why the progression of the CN numbers and the final cutoff are so different from one year to another, if DOS would be using the same method each year. I understand the profile of applicants can be slightly different from one year to another (more or less people don't opt to go further, more or less people are qualified,etc...), but this should not be drastically different. Statistically speaking, there is no reason the global population change a lot within a few years.
If we exclude years like DV12 (they messed up big time that year) and regions with high numbers of fraud (like with Bangladesh for AS), why would the highest CN number to get interviewed would be much higher in DV14 compared to DV13?

 

[raevsky]

no contradiction found yet,
did you might think that CEAC site is not updated so often , maybe not all numbers are shown there ?

I listed 2 contradictions.
1. The number of visas issued for some countries in some years was much more than the number of possible applicants for those visas available. Both numbers were provided by DOS official publications. That is if we assume the number of visas issued is with dependents
2. The number of winners published (DOS website) was much more than the number of open winners possible existing (CEAC data). We have to assume the number of winners published have to include someone else except open winners.

Unfortunately, your theory completely ignores those discrepancies. That is the main difference between your theory and my theory. At the same time there were a number of hints from DOS publications that second batches are just opening previously drawn winners.

My solution to those discrepancies is to ignore declarations (just two; they were created by Liaison division, and the conference shows an example how they do it) and to keep factual data (numerical one) as valid.

CEAC data is updated very often, and cannot be delayed for more than about 3 weeks. And july was already current for SA. But I will rerun CEAC data for SA today.

 

[raevsky]

The thing I don't really get is why the progression of the CN numbers and the final cutoff are so different from one year to another, if DOS would be using the same method each year. I understand the profile of applicants can be slightly different from one year to another (more or less people don't opt to go further, more or less people are qualified,etc...), but this should not be drastically different. Statistically speaking, there is no reason the global population change a lot within a few years.
If we exclude years like DV12 (they messed up big time that year) and regions with high numbers of fraud (like with Bangladesh for AS), why would the highest CN number to get interviewed would be much higher in DV14 compared to DV13?

I have those calculations for years 2007-2013 (based on data provided by DOS) and I see why it happens. Everything because Bangladesh looks a little bit different every year (if you are talking about Asia). If I exclude Bangladesh for all those years, I see difference not more than 15%.

DV-13 did not have Bangladesh at all that is why I believe DV-14 must look very similar to DV-13, even though I do not have input data for DV-14 (not published)

 

[raevsky]

In DV-1, Asia visa available is 6873 and the winners is 25354 but you missed out one point, Bangladesh alone takes up 14,541 winners and only 3500 max visa per country per year. 11,041 will disqualified due to country quota. So, 14313 should be the winner that going to have an interview. On top of that, it will be 50% success rate. 14313/2 = 7156. Worst case only 1.11% didn't get their interview, 283/25354 = 1.11%. Of course, country that have winners that more than 3500 will have slimmer chance of getting interview, but it doesn't apply for all others countries.

I disagree with your calculations. Bangladeshi quota was 3850 (not 3500) but it was not filled (Bangladesh got 3288 visas). And Bangladesh finished with the same cutoff as all other Asia. In order to satisfy 3850 quota Bangladeshi cutoff needed to be higher than for the rest of Asia. So, your main point was incorrect, that is why I disqualify your calculations. Bangladesh behaved in such a way that the per country quota was irrelevant.

In DV-14, for Asia, there will be Iran and Nepal that will take more than 10k. So that also play a key role into the calculation. As of now, the DV-14 statistic is not out yet. When it is available, we will know the actual # for the actual calculation.

Iran and Nepal do not fill the quota either for either year in the past, and they were always very far from filling it. So, you will have to remove per country quotas from your logic. Please do that. Even though Iran's number of visas issued is increasing, it is very far from 3500 limit. Actually, Iran could be close to 3500 limit in dv-14. But hardly is going to exceed it provided there is no limit.

 

[SusieQQQ]

We all understand that all 3 pieces could not be true all together:
1. Factual data about the number of winners
2. Factual data about the number of visas
3. Declaration that number of winners in p.1 includes both primary winners and dependents

Otherwise that would be an effective proof that 2 x 2 = 5

So, SusieQQQ suggests that DOS cannot be trusted because DOS contracts itself.
On the contrary, I believe that DOS can be trusted, only after we exclude typos in their declarations.

I think it would be more difficult to make several typos in p.1 and several typos in p.2 than to make just one typo in p.3.

So, I believe their declaration that winners include dependents, is false. Also, p.1 and p.2 are factual data, and p.3 is a declaration, not a factual data. I would rather believe how exactly mistakes in declarations like that happen.

If you reread press conference http://fpc.state.gov/198409.htm you will see how clueless is Ms. King on the questions Ms. Turmond was easily able to answer.

The next contradiction in DOS's statements is that the following statements could not be true at the same time alltogether:
1. 16045 winners from Asia
2. Max number is CEAC system 10700
3. Winners were notified with a possible assumption that those were All winners

And the same for other regions.

So, 1, 2 or all 3 have to be false.
It is much harder to believe that p.1 or p.2 are false for all regions, than p.3 just once. Those are factual data. p.3 is a declaration, not an actual data.

Look how many times Ms. King was wrong, compared to Ms. Turmond?! That is because Ms. Turmond operated factual data, but Ms. King (Liaison division) operates declarations instead.

So, the logic is clear. You try to trust all DOS statement, and if you cannot, you consider declarations made by Liaison division as false. In case all factual data does not have contradictions. SusieQQQ was wrong - both false daclarations were made by the same division - Liaison division. But i agree with SusieQQQ that Liaison division has a higher probability of issuing false statements than Divisions issuing factual data.

This approach is much more productive than SusieQQQ's approach, saying DOS is totally untrustful.

Raevsky, whatever your claimed gifts are, understanding simple posts is clearly not one of them. I did not once say DoS is untrustworthy. In fact, I have placed reliance on what they say. But I simply pointed out that YOU need to claim that various statements of theirs are false in order to make your theories work. That automatically makes me suspicious of your theory.

 

[House409]

I have those calculations for years 2007-2013 (based on data provided by DOS) and I see why it happens. Everything because Bangladesh looks a little bit different every year (if you are talking about Asia). If I exclude Bangladesh for all those years, I see difference not more than 15%.

DV-13 did not have Bangladesh at all that is why I believe DV-14 must look very similar to DV-13, even though I do not have input data for DV-14 (not published)

I once found a link in one of the threads discussing this topic. I cant find this thread anymore, but I kept the link in my favorites. I find this very interesting. This is the progression of the EU cutoffs for the last decade. The guy did this last Fall, and he extrapolated the progression for DV13 (in retrospect, he was a little pessimistic). If you forget about DV12, you can see that the last cutoffs have always been in the high 20k/low 30k these past few years. Then, the numbers became current in early Summer. How could we explain this is gonna be different for DV14?

Here is the link:

http://www.anony.ws/i/2012/10/13/5QXPq.png

 

[Kayend]

I disagree with your calculations. Bangladeshi quota was 3850 (not 3500) but it was not filled (Bangladesh got 3288 visas). And Bangladesh finished with the same cutoff as all other Asia. In order to satisfy 3850 quota Bangladeshi cutoff needed to be higher than for the rest of Asia. So, your main point was incorrect, that is why I disqualify your calculations. Bangladesh behaved in such a way that the per country quota was irrelevant.




Iran and Nepal do not fill the quota either for either year in the past, and they were always very far from filling it. So, you will have to remove per country quotas from your logic. Please do that. Even though Iran's number of visas issued is increasing, it is very far from 3500 limit. Actually, Iran could be close to 3500 limit in dv-14. But hardly is going to exceed it provided there is no limit.

I am not talking about visa issued, I am talking about winners from those country. In DV-1, Bangladesh have 14313 winners. And every country can only have 7% of the total diversity visa per year. I assume you are calculating 7% of 55k. Even with 3850 max visa can be issue to each country in 1995, with a simple calculation of taking the winners 14313 - 3850 = 10463. We know 10453 from 25354 is not going to get any visa, so how can you said 74% do not get their interview for all Asia countries. If you said it only applied to Bangladesh then it make sense to me.

Again in DV-14, I am referring to winners from Nepal and Iran. In DV-13, the combined winners from Nepal and Iran is 10399. In DV-14, it will increase ~20% more selectee so it will be more than 10k for sure.

Anyway, let wait for 30 more days, we will know the Oct cut-off for DV-14. If your theory is right, the cut-off for Asia should be around 2k. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to prove your theory is wrong, I just feel that some of your argument in your theory doesn't make sense. So, I am trying to point those out hoping you can give a more concrete answer to further prove your theory.

In short, your theory state that there are hidden winners and the primary winners are more or less equal to the 105k (in Dv-13) and 125k (in DV-14) exclude family member. Another theory is that the 105k/125k include primary winners and their family members. So, the case # issue will be lesser than 105k/125k. Either theory can be use to explain why DV-13 and DV-14 has so much different in term of case # issue. I think all the users from this forum wanted the 2nd theory to be true because everyone wanted to have at least a chance for an interview. Everyone have the right to believe what they want to believe.

Let put a stop on this. Whichever theory is right, no one know unless we can verify with USCIS (or whichever agency that have the detail info). Let the DV-14 winners enjoy their hope for now. One of your intent is to tell those with high case # not to submit their forms with the worry of not getting thru and yet they have the immigrate intent that might impact their future visa application. But I think the winners that seriously consider to migrate to US already sent their forms to KCC by now.

 

[raevsky]

Raevsky, whatever your claimed gifts are, understanding simple posts is clearly not one of them. I did not once say DoS is untrustworthy. In fact, I have placed reliance on what they say. But I simply pointed out that YOU need to claim that various statements of theirs are false in order to make your theories work. That automatically makes me suspicious of your theory.

I find it difficult to rely on theories that need various official sources of information to be wrong

You statement clearly said that you could not rely on what DOS said (I know you meant contradictions are not permissible to anyone else other than DOS; but I extrapolate this to everyone, including DOS; I do not see any real difference; contradictions are obvious; so your statement clear on the subject). Cannot be more clear. Or just found it difficult to rely on that? What is the difference between "find it difficult to rely" and "cannot rely"?

If you think that contradictions in DOS data only make it difficult on other than DOS's theories on the subject, that is called a bias. You allow DOS to make contradictory statements, and you do not allow anyone else to talk about the subject and uncover those contradictions, and make any kind of implications from that.

 

[raevsky]

I once found a link in one of the threads discussing this topic. I cant find this thread anymore, but I kept the link in my favorites. I find this very interesting. This is the progression of the EU cutoffs for the last decade. The guy did this last Fall, and he extrapolated the progression for DV13 (in retrospect, he was a little pessimistic). If you forget about DV12, you can see that the last cutoffs have always been in the high 20k/low 30k these past few years. Then, the numbers became current in early Summer. How could we explain this is gonna be different for DV14?

Here is the link:

http://www.anony.ws/i/2012/10/13/5QXPq.png

All that data is based on the DOS practice to hide numbers in all those years. In DV-2014 it does not hide numbers. That is why this statistics is not applicable.

 

[raevsky]

I am not talking about visa issued, I am talking about winners from those country. In DV-1, Bangladesh have 14313 winners. And every country can only have 7% of the total diversity visa per year. I assume you are calculating 7% of 55k. Even with 3850 max visa can be issue to each country in 1995, with a simple calculation of taking the winners 14313 - 3850 = 10463. We know 10453 from 25354 is not going to get any visa, so how can you said 74% do not get their interview for all Asia countries. If you said it only applied to Bangladesh then it make sense to me.

Again in DV-14, I am referring to winners from Nepal and Iran. In DV-13, the combined winners from Nepal and Iran is 10399. In DV-14, it will increase ~20% more selectee so it will be more than 10k for sure.

Once again, you have to exclude irrelevant referring to per country quota because it was not filled in DV-1 and most likely will not be filled in DV-2014. It cannot be filled for Nepal. For Iran it could be theoretically filled, but would be right on the border. Per country quota makes sense only if it is filled. It does not make sense to talk about imaginary limit that is not going to be filled anyway.

Anyway, let wait for 30 more days, we will know the Oct cut-off for DV-14. If your theory is right, the cut-off for Asia should be around 2k. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to prove your theory is wrong, I just feel that some of your argument in your theory doesn't make sense. So, I am trying to point those out hoping you can give a more concrete answer to further prove your theory.

Yes, we will know more later, I agree. My theory states that cut off for October for Asia would be around 2K.

In short, your theory state that there are hidden winners and the primary winners are more or less equal to the 105k (in Dv-13) and 125k (in DV-14) exclude family member. Another theory is that the 105k/125k include primary winners and their family members. So, the case # issue will be lesser than 105k/125k. Either theory can be use to explain why DV-13 and DV-14 has so much different in term of case # issue.

True. But the other theory cannot explain how the number of visas can be significantly more than the number of winners (what happened in the past several times) from the same country.

I think all the users from this forum wanted the 2nd theory to be true because everyone wanted to have at least a chance for an interview. Everyone have the right to believe what they want to believe.

I agree. However, what actually takes place does not depend on our wish. That is not like praying.

Let put a stop on this. Whichever theory is right, no one know unless we can verify with USCIS (or whichever agency that have the detail info). Let the DV-14 winners enjoy their hope for now. One of your intent is to tell those with high case # not to submit their forms with the worry of not getting thru and yet they have the immigrate intent that might impact their future visa application. But I think the winners that seriously consider to migrate to US already sent their forms to KCC by now.

Do you understand the contradictions that take place with Eritrea, Albania and Greece 3 years in a row? What is your answer to that contradiction? All typos?

 

[raevsky]

And another interesting thing. The last SA number on CEAC is 1252. But there are two cutoffs - 1300 and then next 1500. What does it mean? Why is the cutoff more than max number and still increasing? To me that means underfilling, and they need numbers up to 1500 to be open to fix underfilling. Where are those numbers? They are hidden.

 

[SusieQQQ]

You statement clearly said that you could not rely on what DOS said (I know you meant contradictions are not permissible to anyone else other than DOS; but I extrapolate this to everyone, including DOS; I do not see any real difference; contradictions are obvious; so your statement clear on the subject). Cannot be more clear. Or just found it difficult to rely on that? What is the difference between "find it difficult to rely" and "cannot rely"?

If you think that contradictions in DOS data only make it difficult on other than DOS's theories on the subject, that is called a bias. You allow DOS to make contradictory statements, and you do not allow anyone else to talk about the subject and uncover those contradictions, and make any kind of implications from that.

Raevsky, do you not understand simple English? The theory I was referring to - the sentence of mine you quoted to support the lies you made in your previous post about what i said - that I could not rely on was YOURS. DoS doesn't even have "theories" that they publish, they have procedures. You're in so much of a tangle trying to defend your theory that you seem to now have to twist my words to mean 180 degrees opposite to what I actually said. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when this is what you do? I personally have found no contradictions in what DoS said. You only claim they are the because DoS statements mean your theory is wrong.

 

[raevsky]

Your words are definitely different from your thoughts. You mean one thing but say something else. However, if you do not understand what I am writing about (you say you do not see contradictions I mentioned), our conversation is going to be one-sided. Those contradictions are my starting point, and you see no starting point.
You need to realize that once you admit those contradictions, your words (maybe not thoughts) mean exactly what I am quoting from you - DOS cannot be trusted because it makes contradictory statements. That is you who says your words are exactly your thoughts. However, your words sound very much different from your thoughts for those who see those DOS's contradictions.

 

[House409]

All that data is based on the DOS practice to hide numbers in all those years. In DV-2014 it does not hide numbers. That is why this statistics is not applicable.

I don't understand why the theory of the hidden number should make the curve much different in DV14 than in DV13. To me this statistics should apply if this theory is true, don't you think?

 

[raevsky]

The thing is that DOS publishes the results of the lotteries (number of winners) they have INCLUDING hidden numbers. They do not distinguish between hidden numbers and open numbers. When they say there are 16045 winners from Asia, that means open and hidden total. That is why 9K open + 7K hidden looks exactly the same on number of winners statistics as 16K open + 0 hiden. However, max number per region you see from the forum is different - that is max number among open numbers only. If DOS wants to get rid of all hidden numbers and release all of them as open - that would look exactly in the following way - the same number of winners per country, but a much higher max per region.
So, if they republish DV-13 results under no hidden numbers doctrine, they would have exactly the same number of winners per country, with much higher max per region, exactly same as we see in dv-14.

 

[House409]

Ok got it - thanks - that does not mean the very last people getting interviewed next year would be much higher than this year, right? The curves I showed in the link were the progression of the current numbers each year. Nothing to do with open or hidden numbers, don't you think?